Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2017 1:13 PM
375 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,170 Year: 20,776/21,208 Month: 1,209/2,326 Week: 545/345 Day: 68/134 Hour: 2/18

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 31 of 60 (791791)
09-21-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
09-21-2016 11:47 AM


Re: Devil's Advocate
I suspect that this is due to both carbon source and fractionation during photosynthesis. Photosynthesis favors lighter isotopes, so I suspect that the 13C values you are giving are probably related to 13C/12C ratios. In terrestrial ecosystems, photosynthesizers fix carbon, and that carbon then filters down through each trophic level.

Is this not also the case with aquatic environments? I wouldn't be surprised if free 13C/12C ratios were different for aquatic environments, but do marine animals fix dissolve carbon dioxide instead of deriving it from photosynthesizers? Or is the dissolved CO2 in aquatic environments just that different?

Isotopic fractionation is indeed what causes these differences in the C12/C13 ratios. A text and table showing these types of differences are located at:

http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html
http://www.c14dating.com/isotope.html

I believe marine mammals pick up the C12/C13 ratios from their diet, as so terrestrial mammals.

Short on time at the moment, more later if you want.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 09-21-2016 11:47 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 09-21-2016 9:09 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 32 of 60 (791792)
09-21-2016 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
09-21-2016 4:12 PM


Re: Maybe off topic
Faith--I'd rather keep this thread to dating issues if possible.

That's one of my main interests and areas of expertise.

Thanks!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1361
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 33 of 60 (791809)
09-21-2016 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
09-21-2016 4:43 PM


Re: Devil's Advocate
It's also interesting that there are two separate photosynthetic processes, with two different degrees of isotopic fractionation. Most plants follow the "normal" process, which I believe gives a delta-13 value of about -25. But corn follows a different process which I believe gives a lower value, maybe -12? (I'm pressed for time; maybe someone else can fill in the details on the names of the processes and the values?)

One interesting and useful result of this difference is that a delta-13 measurement can reveal whether or not various "natural fruit juices" or other foods have been spiked with corn sugar.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2016 4:43 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2016 11:00 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 34 of 60 (791887)
09-25-2016 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
09-21-2016 9:09 PM


Re: Devil's Advocate
I looked it up and you are correct, corn gives a much higher C13 reading than other similar plant materials. I had not been aware of that as we don't have corn in our local prehistoric sites so I had never had cause to date that material.

I don't know the cause or name for the process, but its good to know if I ever want to date that material.

I most often date marine shell, which has a good track record in this area. On one occasion I dated charcoal and two different shell species from a very tight provenience and after marine reservoir correction and calibration ended up with three dates within 10 or 15 years or some such. That's pretty good!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 09-21-2016 9:09 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 35 of 60 (791891)
09-26-2016 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
09-21-2016 4:12 PM


Re: Maybe off topic
Faith writes:

As for the "assumptions" scientific dating is based on, I just don't get into dating issues at all if I can help it.

You should try it, Faith. This thread is about those "assumptions" those creationists keep talking about. You do know that there's lots of evidence for those "evolutionist assumptions" . This is the threat to discuss those "assumptions".

ICANT disappeared. Obviously ICANT is not able to handle reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 36 of 60 (791893)
09-26-2016 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
09-07-2016 6:31 PM


Re: Creationists have been very silent on assumptions
Faith writes:

Sure: absolute or "scientific" dating is irrelevant if relative dating is all it takes to find oil or do other practical geological work

I disagree. Relative dating is very, very important in describing the coal deposits I, personally, work on. Remember those exploration and mining companies?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 09-07-2016 6:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 37 of 60 (798798)
02-05-2017 2:49 PM


Bump (again) for creationist input
Creationists are still ignoring this thread.

This is their big chance to present evidence!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 38 of 60 (798860)
02-06-2017 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
08-11-2016 9:58 AM


Correction
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

He does have some goofy beliefs about the earth being much smaller during the time of the flood...

No my goofy idea is that in the far distant past the earth was smaller than it is today. I believe that is also the scientific view as the earth grew bigger over millions of years.

There is oil 5,000' deep in the earth under 22,000+ psi there is no mechanism for which the oil could get to where it is today without the pumping technology we have today.

OR

So my idea is that the entire earth (no oceans) was a greenhouse and was 15 to 30 miles less in diameter than it is today.

When the earth would get covered with plants and creatures it would get bombarded by meteors, meteorites and asteroids. Which would bury the plants and creatures. Then there would be another growth of plants and critters. Then they would be buried and the cycle would continue, until the earth has reached it's present size. The process is continuing even today as a very large number of meteoroids enter the Earth's atmosphere each day amounting to more than a hundred tons of material.

We have used over a trillion barrels of oil so far and there is over 3 trillion barrels of known reserves. It takes 98 tons of raw material to create 1 gallon of gasoline and there is 44 gallons of gas in a barrel.
That means 3,960 tons is required for a barrel of oil just for the gasoline not counting anything for the natural gas or crude. Resulting in 1.188e+16 tons of material to make the remaining oil and it would take another 3,960,000,000,000,000 tons to make what we have already used. That is not counting anything for the gas already used nor the natural gas or any coal that has been used.

Can you come up with another way all that material could have been buried under the rock it is under.

I just had to correct you on what my goofy idea is.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2016 9:58 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Pressie, posted 02-06-2017 5:57 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 39 of 60 (798863)
02-06-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
08-10-2016 11:49 AM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

Creationists imply that the assumptions they don't like are nothing more than wild guesses.

Since as NoNukes told you that I am old earth the only problem I would have with dating is that I think the universe and earth are a lot older than you do.

But as far as assumptions go I have two that I have a real problem with.

1. We are positive that the Universe existed at 1 billionth of a second after T=0

The assumption the universe existed at T=0 is one I have a problem with.

If there was an absence of existence at T=0 how did existence begin to exist in the first billionth of a second? There had to be existence for the Universe to begin to exist. Non existence can not produce existence.

2. The assumption that life began to exist from non life is another one I have a problem with.

Those 2 assumptions lead to the third assumption.

3. Just ignore those two assumptions and explain the Universe and life without knowing where they came from or how they began to exist.

That pretty well takes care of my assumptions.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2016 11:49 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2017 9:54 AM ICANT has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 40 of 60 (798868)
02-06-2017 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:30 AM


Re: Correction
ICANT writes:

No my goofy idea is that in the far distant past the earth was smaller than it is today. I believe that is also the scientific view as the earth grew bigger over millions of years.

Changing the subject, again?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 41 of 60 (798888)
02-06-2017 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
02-06-2017 3:22 AM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
Please stick to the original subject of scientific dating, particularly radiocarbon dating.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 3:22 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM Coyote has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 42 of 60 (798915)
02-06-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
02-06-2017 9:54 AM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
Hi Coyote

Coyote writes:

Please stick to the original subject of scientific dating, particularly radiocarbon dating.

I responded to your statement in Message 4:

Coyote writes:

Creationists imply that the assumptions they don't like are nothing more than wild guesses.

I stated the assumptions that I think are wild guesses.
I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss them.

In Message 1 you said:

Coyote writes:

In the flood thread we have the following:

Coyote writes:

And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame?

ICANT writes:

The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old, A constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially.

But I don't care what age you tell me a particular rock is I will disagree with you as I believe it is much older than you do, because of what I read in the Bible.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2017 9:54 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 2:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2017 2:37 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 5:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Pressie, posted 02-07-2017 5:52 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 02-08-2017 11:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 43 of 60 (798918)
02-06-2017 2:23 PM


Moderator Warning
This is a science thread. Those who have no scientific evidence or rationale for what they believe should not be participating.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 44 of 60 (798919)
02-06-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:32 PM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
ICANT writes:

I stated the assumptions that I think are wild guesses.

None of those are assumptions involved in scientific dating.

The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old, A constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially.

1. We don't assume the universe is x years old. The age of the universe is a conclusion drawn from many lines of evidence, including the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. Also, radiometric dating does not involve the age of the universe.

2. We can observe that daughter element does not leave certain crystals, such as Pb in zircons. Also, we can use multiple independent parent/daughter isotope pairs on several different types of minerals from the same geologic strata. Loss of parent/daughter isotopes would not affect all rocks and all isotopes the same, so if loss were responsible for the ages then different systems would give different ages.

3. We can use the isochron dating methods to measure the amount of daughter element present when the rock solidified. That is definitely not an assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 5:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 45 of 60 (798921)
02-06-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
02-06-2017 1:32 PM


Re: Assumptions are not wild guesses
The first assumption you have to make is that the universe is x years old, A constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially.

We're not dealing with rocks--radiocarbon dating works with carbon! Most of your "objections" deal with radiometric rather than radiocarbon dating. You should learn the differences!

A constant decay rate is a good assumption, well supported by the evidence. Only a few creationists disagree based entirely on non-scientific beliefs.

We can test for atmospheric radiocarbon via tree-ring dating so the parent/daughter argument does not apply.

Creationists just don't like the results of radiocarbon dating and so they're casting about aimlessly for any plausible-sounding excuses so they don't have to accept those results.

Here is a good website from which you might learn something:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2017 1:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 5:41 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017